I heard that the two HLS options will compete. It didn't sound like both was an option.

If it is, then fine. But SpaceX should not be pressured into helping Blue Origin. They have their own HLS to develop and their own deadlines to meet.

TexAgs91 said:

---

I heard that the two HLS options will compete. It didn't sound like both was an option.

If it is, then fine. But SpaceX should not be pressured into helping Blue Origin. They have their own HLS to develop and their own deadlines to meet.

---

If SpaceX has the capability to make Falcon Heavy updates that support diversification of options for Artemis, then NASA should do everything they can to increase odds of Artemis success - and SpaceX would bill NASA for the work.

normaleagle05 said:

---

Boom is ahead by having already demonstrated boomless supersonic flight. February last year I think.

Their Superpower gas turbine generators are generating revenue through pre-sales but installed units are not forecast before early 2027. Their CEO just announced today that they've finished assembly of the first Symphony (their jet turbine for planes and power plants) high pressure rotor system. Still working toward a fully assembled unit.

Boom team has finished assembly of the entire high pressure rotor system for Symphony. We’ve got 85% of engine parts in inventory now and are sprinting to get the rest of this motor built pic.twitter.com/6XBStWV04i

— Blake Scholl 🛫 (@bscholl) June 5, 2026

I see Superpower (their 42 MW gas turbine power plant in a shipping container) as analogous to Starlink. It leverages their tech to solve a common problem (deployable high output power) that generates revenue while they work toward their real goal of selling supersonic jets to every airline.

---

And their "factory" has been sitting vacant for two years.

I'm hesitant to too-harshly criticize them but they are much better at producing powerpoints/presentations than production hardware, imho.

SpaceX is on the opposite end at signing billion-dollar-a-month agreements with top tech companies:

SpaceX has just announced that they have entered into a $920 million per month agreement with Google to provide compute capacity, according to a new filing.

"On June 5, 2026, we entered into a Cloud Service Agreement with Google with respect to access to compute capacity. The… pic.twitter.com/hLFkJofdzi

— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 5, 2026

Still, their IPO is at a 100:1 income:valuation and even though I am a big fan I just have a tough time seeing it as only going up from there. And, they are about to go through at least 5 years of massive 'investment' with very little net income growth from operations such as orbital data centers and starship infrastructure/launch/production building up, again imho. It's tough to see the stock anything but off 50+ percent in 2 years.

Realising Apple went public at under $2 billion and 15 times revenue in 1980.

SpaceX wants you to buy at $2 trillion and 100 times revenue in 2026.

That is not getting in early. That is being the exit for venture capitalists who have held this equity for years at a fraction of… https://t.co/9Le2uoj51T pic.twitter.com/Spsv68w1Qy

— Dami-Defi (@DamiDefi) June 4, 2026

clw04 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

I heard that the two HLS options will compete. It didn't sound like both was an option.

If it is, then fine. But SpaceX should not be pressured into helping Blue Origin. They have their own HLS to develop and their own deadlines to meet.

---

If SpaceX has the capability to make Falcon Heavy updates that support diversification of options for Artemis, then NASA should do everything they can to increase odds of Artemis success - and SpaceX would bill NASA for the work.

---

Not if it comes at the expense of slowing down the prime contractor for HLS. That's counter productive.

TexAgs91 said:

---

If you're going to build a lunar base, which HLS do you want to go with?

---

That's a different question than which HLS should be used for Artemis 4.
Isaacman's plan is to start putting as much stuff on the Moon as possible as soon as possible: rovers, comm towers, experiments, etc. before you build up a hab. Learn lessons from the smaller things before the big thing. To do that you need landers ready to go now.

Ultimately, you want both. You need multiple rockets for redundancy and different purposes.

They just made a big announcement a few weeks ago with some plans and contacts.
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-provides-update-on-moon-base-rovers-landers-missions/

Google owns about 6% stake in SpaceX. So this contract looks to be pumping the stock before the IPO.

The old saw about having things done fast, cheap or well; choose two, comes to mind.

clw04 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

I heard that the two HLS options will compete. It didn't sound like both was an option.

If it is, then fine. But SpaceX should not be pressured into helping Blue Origin. They have their own HLS to develop and their own deadlines to meet.

---

If SpaceX has the capability to make Falcon Heavy updates that support diversification of options for Artemis, then NASA should do everything they can to increase odds of Artemis success - and SpaceX would bill NASA for the work.

---

I think the issue for spacex will be the h2 fuel for the lander. Spacex launch towers have no infrastructure for H2

TexAgs91 said:

---

clw04 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

I heard that the two HLS options will compete. It didn't sound like both was an option.

If it is, then fine. But SpaceX should not be pressured into helping Blue Origin. They have their own HLS to develop and their own deadlines to meet.

---

If SpaceX has the capability to make Falcon Heavy updates that support diversification of options for Artemis, then NASA should do everything they can to increase odds of Artemis success - and SpaceX would bill NASA for the work.

---

Not if it comes at the expense of slowing down the prime contractor for HLS. That's counter productive.

---

You can make that assumption. I'm making the assumption that SpaceX can do both or they won't do it based on experience. When has SpaceX ever done something that isn't in their interest. SpaceX is so diversified working different threads that it's not really reasonable to say from the outside that them adding launch of a Blue Origin will slow down their HLS variant. It still would be stupid for NASA to not push in that direction to get as much flexibility as they can.

Quad Dog said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

If you're going to build a lunar base, which HLS do you want to go with?

---

That's a different question than which HLS should be used for Artemis 4.
Isaacman's plan is to start putting as much stuff on the Moon as possible as soon as possible: rovers, comm towers, experiments, etc. before you build up a hab. Learn lessons from the smaller things before the big thing. To do that you need landers ready to go now.

Ultimately, you want both. You need multiple rockets for redundancy and different purposes.

They just made a big announcement a few weeks ago with some plans and contacts.
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-provides-update-on-moon-base-rovers-landers-missions/

---

Depends on if it's a competition for HLS like Duffy said or if NASA's going to want both options like some here think. If it's a competition then one vehicle will have to do it all and you have to consider not only near term but long term needs as well.

I think...
SpaceX will do what is best for SpaceX & Elon Musk. Elon wants to go to Mars. Everything they do on the moon prepares them for Mars. Everything they don't do on the moon, they get to watch their US based space peers do and they can go hire those people away as needed.

In my opinion... What SpaceX does not want to do, is mess with a fuel they have never used and have no current plans to use. They have never built or designed any of their hardware, systems, or infrastructure to deal with or manage H2.

New launch site ground hardware...
New launch tower hardware...
Does the payload get continual top off on the pad? If so do they add fill connections through the fairing? Do they add onto the upper stage quick disconnect and fuel through a redesigned cargo mount ? With cryogenics, things are venting. So is everything inside the fairings vented? Is everything in there intrinsically safe to operate in a now potentially flammable or even explosive atmosphere?

NASA still wants two vehicles to bring people to ISS: Dragon and Starliner. Even with Starliner's struggles they are still pushing for it. Having two options buys you redundancy, dissimilar systems if one of them has a misshap, and multiple contractors to give business to. All good things for NASA and the US in general.

The goal is to repeat the same on the Moon with Starship and Blue. On paper right now the goal of Artemis 4 is to land people with Starship and Artemis 5 is with Blue. NASA will be ready to swap that order depending on who is ready for people first. Before NASA puts their astronauts on either lander they have to demonstrate an unmanned landing first. NASA wants both landers for people for the same reason they want multiple providers to take people and cargo to ISS.


Blue origin and SpaceX probably see themselves in competition to be first and most often. NASA doesn't see them as competitors. NASA sees them as provider options.

Think SpaceX's best course is to be a team player even if it's a pain in the ass. Making "The Guy" look good goes a long way.

will25u said:

---

Anthropic and Google are now paying @SpaceX a combined $2.17 billon per month for compute capacity. That's a revenue run rate of $26 billion per year. BIG MONEY. https://t.co/SeKwWKMIQi

— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 5, 2026

---

I'm still curious why Google needs SpaceX for compute power.
They are one of the top 3 clouds in the world.
What's the reasoning?

Google invested in SpaceX a long time ago. Announce this contract to drive up the stock price, see ROI, quietly cancel or renegotiate the contract later.

They can cancel with 30 days notice I read.

Quad Dog said:

---

Google invested in SpaceX a long time ago. Announce this contract to drive up the stock price, see ROI, quietly cancel or renegotiate the contract later.

---

so it's mainly for the IPO....

Is this the same for Gibbon Creek?

I think I saw elsewhere this isn't the first... SpaceX does rent it their older compute.
I also don't believe this was "just to boost the IPO.". The new umbrella SpaceX family of companies have their fingers in a lot, and that's all about to become public data.

There is this

https://spacenews.com/duffy-says-nasa-will-open-artemis-3-lander-contract-to-competition/

But apparently the competition is for who will land a crew on the moon first.

I still think it's a bad plan to push for the lead HLS provider to redirect some of their energy towards helping the rookies get to the moon.

As Kenneth_2003 points out above this is a significant effort. One that will only slow down the prime HLS option.

Blue Origin already caused at least a 4 month HLS delay at SpaceX:

Quote:

---

Timeline and Direct ImpactApril 16, 2021: NASA awarded the ~$2.9B HLS Option A contract solely to SpaceX (due to funding limits).

Late AprilJuly 30, 2021: Blue Origin and Dynetics filed GAO protests NASA issued a stop-work order on the SpaceX contract. GAO denied the protests on July 30.

August 13November 4, 2021: Blue Origin filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. NASA again paused work (through early November) in exchange for an expedited schedule. The court dismissed the suit on November 4, allowing work to resume.

NASA and independent reviews (including the NASA OIG) attributed a ~4-month delay specifically to the bid protests, with the full legal process extending the effective contract start by about 6 months (e.g., pushing a planned Starship HLS delivery milestone from December 2024 to June 2025 in early planning).

---

Isaacman changed the Artemis plan significantly since that article was written.

It's also very common for these big contracts to be contested.

Super heavy booster 20 undergoing full load cryogenic proof testing today at Starbase Massey's test site in preparation for Starship test flight 13.

6/6/26 pic.twitter.com/FgX1sCDttH

— Starship Gazer (@StarshipGazer) June 7, 2026

Nice.